Thomas B. Passin wrote:
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>Conceptual Model Property Hierarchies:
>>
>> physicalProperty
>> |
>> |
>> linearPhysicalProperty
>> |
>> |
>> length
>>
>>Question: How would "area" fit into this property hierarchy?
>
> physicalProperty
> arealPhysicalProperty
> area
>
> Hmm, need to think some more about whether there is any significant
> difference between linearPhysicalProperty and length. Maybe they are really
> synonyms and we can cut out one level. Any one else want to contribute
> here? My idea was that there are many kinds of linearPhysicalProperties,
> and "length" is only one of them. For example, there could be "width" as
> well, and "height", and "thickness". They are all linearPhysicalProperties,
> that is why I had the third layer. Much as I would like to cut out the
> third level, I still think that it is correct modeling to keep it.
I would suggest
physicalProperty
lengthProperty
foo:length
bar:width
baz:height
a:size
areaProperty
wombat:area
b:size
I.e., call it a "length property" (as meters and feet are "standards of
length"). It does make sense that there would be a single vocabulary
defining "lengthProperty," but many different vocabularies which define
special lengthProperties. A pond of water doesn't have a length, but it
may have a pond:depth-- which would be a lengthProperty.
However, I am wondering; what is preferable about the above approach vs.
Property
PhysicalProperty
LengthProperty
AreaProperty
and then have
wombat:area rdf:type AreaProperty
?
Or is this definition too close to RDF already and you want to specify
something on a more abstract level?
- Benja